24 October 2013 4:03 PM

Here’s a delicious insight into the madness of coalition policy making.

Nick Clegg has had much fun with David Cameron’s green energy outburst at Prime Minister’s Questions, sending out his aides to rubbish the idea as a ‘panicky u-turn’.

But sources close to the Prime Minister say that the Lib Dem leader’s announcement this morning that he wants to create a pool of talented heads and deputy head teachers to send into failing schools was equally chaotic and gimmicky.

When Clegg aide’s briefed Westminster journalists on the proposal on Wednesday evening, this team of superheads was branded a ‘Champions League of Head Teachers’. The phrase was used in Mr Clegg’s speech and enthusiastically promoted by one particular football-mad spindoctor.

When I asked, somewhat facetiously, whether papers with less of an interest in football could call it an ‘SAS hit squad of teachers’, I was mocked.

But No 10 sources have now told me that Clegg’s 'Champions League' sobriquet for his Super Heads speech was Team Clegg's third effort at devising an ear-catching name for this initiative.

In a delicious confirmation of the way in which journalistic jokes often sail close to the truth, I understand the first effort was 'The A Team Crack Squad' – not so far from my own, mocking, moniker.

That sobriquet was abandoned because the DPM’s people were concerned that Mr Clegg might find himself in one of the popular newspapers mocked up in a picture as BA Baracus or even Howling Mad Murdoch.

If you thought the Thick of It was a comedy series rather than a documentary, consider Team Clegg’s second effort: Rescue Heads.

This wheeze was torpedoed when a Cabinet Office official googled the phrase and pointed out that that ‘Super Duper Rescue Heads’ was a song by the San Francisco-based noise band Deerhoof.

A quick visit to the band’s Wikipedia page reveals, 'Deerhoof has maintained that they have never known what kind of music they would create next, nor that they even had any idea what they were doing when they created it.'
Not exactly the message the Lib Dems wanted to convey about their method of crafting education policy.

So aides reached for the cliché cabinet and dragged out the Champions League.

As the A-Team’s Hannibal Smith nearly said: ‘I love it when a dire plan comes together.’

Share this article:

26 June 2013 4:23 PM

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has been ousted by
her predecessor Kevin Rudd after a ‘back me or sack me’ leadership election.
Blame for this incident has focussed on the sexism of Australian society,
Gillard’s incompetence and Labour’s parlous prospects at the next general
election.

But the most talked about explanation is that Gillard was
laid low by her knitting. This icon of feminist stridency and Republican
sentiment was pictured yesterday in a woman’s magazine knitting a woollen
kangaroo for the Royal baby. A day later she is out of a job.

In honour of La Gillard's knitting needles here are another 17 political props that sank or doomed careers.

17: Huskies – David Cameron

An early portent of the new Tory leader’s attempts to
detoxify his party’s image, this photoshoot on a Norwegian glacier in 2006 came
to embody the vacuous image-management that Cameron’s critics have accused him
of ever since. For traditionalists it is an example of him putting trendy
issues ahead of conservatism. For the modernisers it is a reminder of a project
to reform the Tory Party that was never completed and – in its environmental
enthusiasms – has been largely abandoned.

16: Freddie the Frog – Iain Duncan Smith

That was the name despairing Tory MPs gave to the frog in
Iain Duncan Smith’s throat as his mouth ran dry during Prime Minister’s
Questions. IDS tried to make it a virtue, calling himself ‘The Quiet Man’. But
with his leadership under fire, when he vowed to ‘turn up the volume’ what
usually emerged was ‘Gribbet’.

15: Telephone lines – Michael Portillo

The coming man of the Tory Party was widely expected to
challenge John Major for the Tory leadership in 1995. But the Thatcherite heir
instead decided to play the loyalty card while he bided his time. But
Portillo’s ambitions were laid bare when it emerged that he had installed
telephone lines for a campaign headquarters near the Commons in anticipation of
a second round to the contest. Portillo was labelled disloyal and indecisive,
labels that stayed with him into the 2001 leadership election which he meekly
surrendered. There never was a second round in 1995, thanks to the next entry…

14: A stripey blazer – John Redwood

When John Major issued his own ‘back me or sack me’
challenge to Tory MPs in 1995, many thought John Redwood, the only Cabinet
minister with the guts to stand against him, had a chance of wounding the PM to
clear the way for another challenger. That hope went AWOL at Redwood’s campaign
launch where eccentric supporter Tony Marlow’s bright blazer was seen as a
leitmotif for the gaggle of fringe supporters who were backing him.

13: A baseball cap - William Hague

Hague was elected Tory leader at just 36 but was still perceived as a fogey. What better way of humanising him than to send him out in a baseball cap, bearing the motif 'HAGUE', to the Notting Hill Carnival. Several embarrassing photos later and the man who might now be touted as a statesmanlike successor to David Cameron had lost his desire for the job and was beginning a decade long climb back to credibility. A respected Foreign Secretary, his leadership ambitions are nevertheless gone.

12: A banana – David Miliband

Miliband Sr had three or four goes at becoming Labour leader
but the moment he lost his nerve (and never regained it) came when he wrote a
musing piece on the future of the party in the pages of the Guardian,
encouraging rebels to his standard. Just as the party might have accepted a
coup, the boy David waltzed around the conference centre brandishing not a plan
or a sword, but a curved yellow fruit. It only reinforced the clunking fist’s
claim that it was ‘no time for a novice’.

11: Croquet Mallet – John Prescott

It could have been the two gas guzzling Jaguars, so beloved
of the minister in charge of saving the environment, or the diary secretary
with whom he had an affair, or even the punch that he levelled at a voter
during the 2001 election campaign that most damaged Prezza. But, much as his
critics may regret it, each of these incidents simply burnished the myth of
Tony Blair’s deputy prime minister. But this paragon of the working class never
quite got over the sniggering generated when he was pictured playing croquet at
his grace and favour mansion.

10: Underpants – John Major

The only fictitious entry in this list. The notion that John
Major tucked his shirts into his Y-fronts was invented by Mirror journalist
Alastair Campbell, whose true colours were seen shortly afterwards when he went
to work for Tony Blair. But the image, gleefully taken up by cartoonists,
fatally undermined Major’s authority with voters and MPs.

Here's one of Steve Bell's finest:

9: The Waves – Neil Kinnock

The most disastrous encounter with water since King Cnut. Following
defeat in the 1983 general election, Neil Kinnock took a morale boosting stroll
on Brighton beach with wife Glenys but got caught out by an incoming wave.
After falling base over apex, Kinnock compounded the error by punching the air.
Most people never saw him as a potential Prime Minister again.

8: The blue dress – Bill Clinton

The 42nd President of the United States might
have escaped impeachment by sticking to his mantra that he ‘did not have sex
with that woman, Miss Lewinsky’ had the intern in question not kept a dress
featuring traces of Mr Clinton’s DNA. What followed saw him become only the
second president impeached by the House of Representatives in 200 years, though
the Senate took the view that committing a lewd act was not ultimately a ‘high
crime and misdemeanor’ that warranted his removal from office.

7: A horse (the lack of) – Richard III

‘My horse, my horse, my kingdom for a horse,’ cried the hunchback
king. A horse was not forthcoming and the last of the Plantagenets faced the
indignity of 500 years buried under a car park in Leicester.

The most disastrous animal encounter in American history. In
the summer of 1979 Jimmy Carter was out fishing in his home state of Georgia when
a deranged swamp rabbit charged his boat. The incident was captured by a white
house photographer. Press Secretary Jody Powell mentioned it to an Associated
Press reporter and the Washington Post ran a front page story, complete with a
cartoon of Jaws, ridiculing the president. His reputation as a weak and
ridiculous figure was cemented in the public mind.

Here's a cartoon version of what happened...

5: Rinka the dog – Jeremy Thorpe

A 1970s cause celebre, Rinka the Great Dane belonging to
Norman Scott, was shot dead on Exmoor and led to the downfall of the then
Liberal leader. Thorpe did not shoot Rinka. Andrew 'Gino' Newton was convicted
for the illegal possession of a firearm and an intent to endanger life. But the
incident led to Thorpe standing trial in 1979 on charges of conspiracy to
murder Scott who had claimed to be his lover. Thorpe was acquitted but his
career never recovered.

Who he? You ask. The former President of the Board of Trade
and MP for Liverpool was all too pleased to present himself for an early photo
opportunity as the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was opened in 1830. But it
all went pear-shaped for Huskisson as Britain’s most famous steam train ran him
down and left him the world’s first ever railway accident death.

3: An arrow – Harold Godwinson

Fresh from defeating the Vikings of Harald Hardrada at the
Battle of Stamford Bridge, Harold Godwinson headed South in 1066 expecting to
kick William of Normandy back into the Sea. He might have done if he hadn’t looked
up at the wrong moment. Britain was never the same again.

2: Cake – Marie Antoinette

An apochryphal tale that sank a monarchy and sparked a
revolution. There is some doubt about whether Marie Antoinette, wife of Lousi
XVI ever uttered the words: ‘Qu'ils mangent de la brioche,’ upon hearing that
the French peasantry had no bread to eat as Rousseau charged. But the French
peasants believed it and beheaded both their King and Queen. Europe was never
the same again.

And here, in homage, is a cake that looks like Marie Antoinette...

1: A piece of paper – Neville Chamberlain

The worst photo opportunity of all time. They cheered, of
course, when the British Prime Minister returned from the Munich conference
with Adolf Hitler and got off a plane at Heston aerodrome wafting his piece of
paper, a worthless pledge by the Nazi dictator ‘never to go to war again’. 'I believe it is peace in our time,' Chamberlain said. They
weren’t cheering a year later when he announced that Britain was at war with
Germany. Many historians believe that failing to take a stand in 1938 condemned
the world to 50 million dead. The world was never the same again.

Share this article:

For those who love politics, today is a red letter day, a
moment when personal ambitions clash, when election prospects hang in the
balance.

No, I don’t mean the coalition’s spending review, in which
the Chancellor will attempt to convince you that he is slashing Whitehall deeply
while spending more of your money.

At the same time Labour will denounce these departmental cuts
whilst admitting that it would do the same, but not quite the same since the
coalition has borrowed too much while Labour would borrow more. Pass the whisky
and the revolver.

No, the big news is that, Down Under, the Australian Labour
Party has just scalped its leader – at her invitation.

Trailing in the polls, leading a divided party, the PM Julia
Gillard, she of the knitted kangaroo, issued a back me or sack me election this
morning with a twist. The loser has to walk away from politics.

Her erstwhile rival Kevin Rudd, the Geoffrey Howe of Oz
politics, accepted the terms and has just beaten her.

This is politics red in tooth and claw with high stakes and
a brutal outcome.

Parallels from one political system to another are seldom
sensible.

But it is hard not to look on Gillard’s gambit as a version
of John Major’s ‘back me or sack me’ leadership election of 1995, when he did
enough to see off John Redwood’s band of blazer-wearing malcontents. Rudd, a
former PM himself, has been challenging her authority for a long time. Gillard
put up and her party have now told her to shut up.

It is also hard not to ask two other questions:

1) What would have happened if David Miliband
or someone else had had the guts to oust Gordon Brown in the run up to the 2010
election?

It was an article of faith among Labour people that the
risks of regicide and division were worse than soldiering on with Brown. Gordon
himself would no more have given his party a chance to ditch him, as Gillard
did, than cut public spending. But in truth it would have required only a very small swing towards Labour, perhaps 15 seats, to make a Labour-Lib Dem coalition
work arithmetically. Most Lib Dems would have instinctively preferred this
option. If Brown’s Cabinet had moved against him (and Miliband, Purnell, Harman,
Straw and Darling all got close) it seems entirely probable that Alan Johnson
or David Miliband would be prime minister now.

More intriguingly, if Tony Blair had had the cojones of Kevin Rudd, could he have returned to save the day?

2) What lessons will the Tory Cameron-haters and
the Mili-bandits take from the Australian leadership election?

Tory plotting has rather gone off the boil of late but
anyone who talks to Tory MPs regularly knows there are a sizeable rump whose
loathing for the Prime Minister knows no bounds and that there are a growing
number whose mild irritation at his manner and chumocracy is stiffening into
outright disdain. Gillard acted because many in her party think Labour has not
a prayer of winning the next general election. If the same conventional wisdom
seizes the Tory Party (or even Labour for that matter) a move against the
leader becomes a distinct possibility.

David Cameron and Ed Miliband had better make sure they are
not pictured knitting.

Share this article:

17 June 2013 11:35 AM

Senior British politicians are hugely naïve about Russia and
Vladimir Putin in particular.

A month ago the Prime Minister flew to Sochi, Putin’s summer
retreat and hailed ‘real progress’ with the Russian President.

In the wake of that meeting, Whitehall briefers breathlessly
described how Mr Putin had put aside his official briefing papers and spoken to
the Prime Minister mano-a-mano.

No matter that this is the oldest diplomatic trick in the
book, (‘Screw this official nonsense,
it’s just you and me Dave…’) senior persons in the British government
appeared to fall for it and proclaim their confidence that some business might
be done at the G8 summit to shift the Russian position on Syria.

Yesterday, Putin got the return trip to Downing Street and told
Mr Cameron he is about to hand weapons to human cannibals who dine on the hearts of their enemies, what one enterprising sub editor headlined a ‘Cannibal
Lecture’.

It was the most uncomfortable press conference since Tony
Blair stood next to Bashar al-Assad and was forced to listen to him defending
the funding of terrorists.

The rights and wrongs of the Prime Minister’s desire to help
the Syrian rebels will be much discussed over the next 48 hours. As I have
revealed before, half the Cabinet appears to oppose him and the whips have
warned that he cannot win a vote in the Commons. That is not my subject here.

Throughout this Syrian civil war, which has now claimed
around 100,000 lives, British politicians and diplomats have repeatedly
appeared overoptimistic about the prospects of getting Russia to assist the
path to peace.

The Foreign Office is brilliant at reading the nuances of
public statements from foreigners. When Russia talks tough, expressions of
regret are made. When warmer noises or hints of compromise are proffered, they
are spotted and seized on like a starving man licking the insides of a
discarded McDonald’s box.

Hopes are expressed, cautious optimism is unleashed. Russian
leaders, we were told, no longer thought Assad must stay (though they have done
nothing to usher him out). Russia might support regime change, we were assured
(if another, as yet unidentified Alawite hardman can be found). And all for
nought.

Russia is unbending. It is redoubling its efforts to arm
Assad. Its spies are rampant in Britain, happy to openly murder dissidents on
the streets of London.

Russia is not a country and Mr Putin is not a man that deals
in nuance, they deal in cold hard power and a belief that their national
interests are not just different from our own but, in many regards, wholly antithetical
to them.

I recently had lunch with a European diplomat and asked what
his country makes of Russia. He delivered a brutal assessment of British
optimism and spelt out the following:

-
While Western nations think in terms of values
and themes, Russia still thinks in terms of power and prestige.

-
Russia still believes in spheres of influence,
the kind of diplomatic concept last indulged in by British politicians at the
Yalta summit in 1945 and abandoned by the West after the fall of the Soviet
Union in 1991. That means it will not countenance Western dabbling in Syria, a
country it regards as within its sphere.

-
Russia believes its interests in the Middle East
are not compatible with those of the West. They believe in a ‘zero sum game’
where that which makes us stronger makes them weaker. Russia wants warm water
ports in Syria, it does not want Western troops in that country.

-
Russia believes in the long game. Its leaders
believe they are engaged in a game (of thrones, if you like) for world power
when Western leaders packed up and went home in 1991.

-
Russia hasn’t changed. You lot don’t get it…

Britain is not alone in its delusions. President Barack
Obama’s reluctance to engage with foreign policy crises comes because he hopes
to stay out of situations that might embroil his country in difficult regions
of the world. Russia sees its interests threatened in these regions, America
increasingly does not.

The silliest response to Russian power came 12 years ago
when President George W. Bush met Putin and announced: ‘I looked the man in the
eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very
good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul.’

There is much talk about Western nations gearing up to arm
the Syrian rebels as if this could be the decisive moment of the conflict. In
fact, the decisive moment has already taken place. It came when Vladimir Putin decided
he would support the Assad regime and keep on supporting them.

That doesn’t mean nothing can be done. We could train the rebels,
even arm the rebels. This might in due course force Assad to the negotiating
table.

But it must be understood that if we do so, we are not just
fighting the bloody regime in Damacus, but its unwavering backers in Moscow.

Share this article:

13 June 2013 12:31 PM

Political spat of the day is between columnist Peter Oborne and the former Tory donor Lord Ashcroft. Oborne suggests that David Cameron should kick the peer out of the party for what he perceives to be disloyalty towards the Prime Minister.

Lord Ashcroft admits in his reponse, that he has from time to time been 'mischievous' in drawing attention to polls and views critical of Mr Cameron on his Twitter feed. He has announced that he will not be giving any further money to the party for the foreseeable future. Certainly he has been openly flirting with Labour types at what might be deemed the naughtier end of the spectrum (Messrs Watson, Dugher, Spellar and McBride have all dined with him recently) as he seeks to promote his new polling company. And there are those in Downing Street who believe, not without evidence, that he has it in for the PM's new stategy guru Lynton Crosby.

One assertion by Oborne, which Lord Ashcroft does not address in his response, is that the peer is disgruntled at not receiving a ministerial post.

I am sympathetic with the view that money should not buy entry to top level politics. But it is hardly the case that David Cameron has taken this view. The Prime Minister has shown himself distressingly keen to wrap about himself those with whom he shared a school, a university, a degree course, a tennis court and his formative years in the Conservative Research Department (in some cases all of the above). On each occasion that Etonians and Oxford PPE graduates and members of CRD in the chumocracy have been promoted, Number 10 mouths mutter reassuringly that these are the very best people for the job, evidence of meritocracy in action, that the Prime Minister would no more promote unworthy mates than he would offer coalition to Edward Miliband.

All of which makes it stranger that Lord Ashcroft has been left on the sidelines. Oborne, I think, is close to correctly diagnosing a problem, but his solution - to kick out the noble peer - is not one I share, particualrly now that he has said he will not give any more money. Instead, Cameron should give the man a job.

Why?

Firstly, because Lord Ashcroft is not someone whose contribution to politics is limited to cash. He has expertise in polling and marginal seats that the Tories could utilise.

By spending big money on big polls with huge sample sizes (20,000 is common - 10 times the size of even a big standard poll), Lord Ashcroft has given us a better understanding of the political landscape than we have had for some time. His poll on the Eastleigh by election nailed the lie that Ukip supporters are obsessed with Europe and transformed Westminster's understanding of the local elections.

There was a time when Lord Ashcroft was feared and hated by Labour MPs because he supported, financially and logistically, Tory candidates in marginal seats. He worked with Stephen Gilbert, who still runs this operation. But the shambles in Eastleigh, where the Tories had months to prepare but little organisation on the ground when Chris Huhne was forced to quit, has sparked whispers among MPs that Gilbert is not up to the job on his own. There is a sense that the Ashcroft-Gilbert axis was stronger, that Chairman Grant Shapps would benefit from some heavyweight support.

Secondly Michael Ashcroft is a palpably successful individual in a party not overburdened with talent. he has made his money, knows how to run things, how to get things done. Not all businessmen who become ministers adapt well to duelling with the civil service. Some, like Jonathan Marland, come to see that they might be more use in an envoy role than wrestling with Whitehall. But there are others over the years who have adapted well and proved highly effective ministers. I could name a dozen MPs without drawing sweat who have been promoted to ministerial office under Mr Cameron who are palpably not up to the job. Lord Ashcroft would certainly do no worse and he could be re3asonably expected to do much better.

Thirdly, there are areas where Lord Ashcroft could be of immediate service. He did, for a while, perform a role as a veterans Tsar for the Prime Minister. He has endowed a wing at the Imperial War Museum and owns a huge collection of Victoria Crosses. I know MPs who are encouraging Downing Street to get him heavily involved in the 100th anniversary commemorations of the First World War. Having listened to the prattlings of ministers on this subject over the last week ('Don't blame the Germans!'), someone with passion, grip and a passing familiarity with the events of 1914 is sorely required.

It is probable that Lord Ashcroft and Mr Crosby are incapable of working together. Mr Cameron has picked Mr Crosby to win him an election. Nothing should be allowed to distract from that. This may preclude a return for Lord Ashcroft to the centre of political campaigning. But I fail to see the harm in attempting to keep inside the tent a man whose skills would strengthen the team and boost Mr Cameron's chances of winning that election.

The Prime Minister is fond of saying he wants the best people in his government. He should prove it.

Share this article:

10 June 2013 1:20 PM

If Labour’s election prospects are an episode of The
Apprentice, we have reached the interview round.

It’s the moment when budding
prime ministers and chancellors (Messrs Miliband and Balls) present their
business plans (on spending and welfare) and try to convince a professional
sceptic (for ‘GoodmorningLordSugar’ read ‘the voters’) that they can be trusted
with his £250,000 (a fragile national economy).

The early rounds have seen the fringe candidates (Diane
Abbott and Andy Burnham) cast asunder.

‘I’ve seen nothing from you for week.
You’re fired.’

It has seen the early favourite, who thinks he is God’s
gift, but lacks the killer instinct at the key moment in the boardroom (David
Miliband), eliminated in favour of the guy who starts quietly but shows his
ruthless side when it matters (brother Ed).

‘I don’t know what my instinct is telling me about you Ed,
but I know exactly what it’s telling me about you, David. You’re fired.’

Also in contention throughout has been the gobby bruiser who
bullies the rest of the contenders to follow his path. Sometimes unpopular,
this candidate survives not only because no one else wants to find themselves
in the boardroom with a killer, but since there is an underlying belief that
the blusterer is the most competent figure in the team. For Neil Clough in this
series, read Ed Balls.

Many senior Labour people say Ed Miliband is frightened of
Ed Balls, but also respects him.

Mr Balls has a justly deserved reputation as one of Labour’s
cleverest politicians and one of their very best political operators (not the
same thing at all). In a world of grey consensus, he is a Marmite figure who
appears to revel in being hated as much as he is feared. He is a grown up.

Which makes the events of the last week all the stranger.

In the last seven days Mr Balls has done some important
things. He has finally offered a concrete cut: to wealthy pensioners’ winter
fuel allowances. Shaving £100 million off the welfare budget won’t save Britain
but it is a start, and one that comes with political calculation, since David
Cameron has refused to slash pensioner benefits.

Mr Balls also let it be known that he would match the
coalition’s departmental spending plans in 2015/16, while spending more on
capital projects.

In the last 48 hours he has also suggested that pensions
should also be included in Ed Miliband’s cap on structural social security
spending (Sugar/Voters: ‘I daahnt know what yer on abaaaaht.’)

Thanks to Dragons Den and The Apprentice there can be very
few people who don’t know the importance of having a good business plan. Step
into the Den or the Boardroom and you’ve got to know what you want, say what
you think and stick to your guns.

But Mr Balls has failed on the latter two counts.

His speech last Monday outlining Labour’s spending plans did
not explicitly state its main theme that Labour would match at least part of
the coalition’s spending envelope. He cast vaguely at it (‘a starting point’)
and left journalists to work it out with a little help from his aides. A big
moment, which could have helped convince the investors/voters was lost in what
Lord Sugar would call ‘all your prattle’.

Having said he would axe winter fuel payments for rich
pensioners Mr Balls then went on Newsnight and suggested he might also seize their
free TV licences, before taking to Twitter to contradict himself.

Having opened up the question of pension costs, he then ran
away from the implications of his policy and said pensions would be preserved.
He failed to state explicitly that the only way to square this circle is to raise
the pension age.

There is much that is to be admired about Labour’s efforts
over the last week. They are back in the conversation in a way they have not
been for months. They have offered a direction of travel on key issues. It was
too much to hope that they would settle every doubt in voters’ minds with two
speeches.

We are used to Mr Miliband offering vague bromides. But from
Mr Balls we expect a clever plan, plus confidence, competence and certainty in
its delivery. We haven’t had it.

For every Apprentice bruiser like Neil Clough, who saves a
dire challenge with a motivational speech, there is the chance that that
blagger turns out to be Stuart Baggs, The Brand, who collapsed at the interview
stage when it became clear that he had survived for too long on his bluster and
his business plan was, to coin a phrase, utter balls.

Or as Lord Sugar might put it: ‘Balls, I'll give you one more chance but I’ve got my eye on
you…’

Share this article:

06 June 2013 10:11 AM

It is increasingly clear that David Cameron is intent on sending military aid to the rebels in Syria.
The EU arms embargo has been lifted, the case has been made that Bashar al Assad has deployed chemical weapons on at least six occasions.
I understand that Ministers believe the area where we can best assist the opposition is to offer military training, rather than - say - mortars and ground to air missiles, which they can get from Gulf Arab states, and which hold far greater 'blowback' perils.
But unlike Libya, where Mr Cameron's fervour and the urgency of the situation won the day, conversations with approaching a dozen ministers and aides have made clear that the Cabinet is far from convinced.
At least six senior ministers on the National Security Council raised concerns about handing over weapons to the opposition fighters when the issue was last discussed more than a month ago.
It is little wonder that there are doubts. Cabinet sources say it could take 18 months of arming rebels to force Assad to the negotiating table – a bleak assessment which means Britain faces being sucked into a longterm military commitment in the world’s most combustible region.

So where do ministers stand?

THE HAWKS
David Cameron, Prime Minister
Convinced by intervention in Libya that Britain can steer events, the Prime Minister also 'got religion' on Syria when he visited Jordan last year, an ally of
Britain that is inundated with refugees and facing internal strife as a consequence. ‘David got a taste for it in Libya and he thinks something must be done,’ said one source familiar with the discussions.

William Hague, Foreign Secretary
Has come to the view that peace talks to resolve the crisis are ‘doomed to fail’ and is keen that plans be drawn up for military assistance to the rebels.
‘We have to prepare for the failure of diplomacy,’ a senior Whitehall source said. ‘We will try to make it work but there is little hope that it will.’
Mr Hague and Mr Cameron have begun holding private meetings with MPs to convince them that they should support arming the rebels. Mr Hague argues that failure to act will lead to a regional war sucking in Israel and Iran and fatally destabilise Syria’s neighbours Jordan and Lebanon.

Michael Gove, Education Secretary
Uberhawk whose influence with Mr Cameron on foreign policy issues has given him a strong voice even though his department has no national security role. Gove is a firm supporter of William Hague's view that arming moderate rebels will help the balance in what he sees as a global battle against militant Islamists.

George Osborne, Chancellor
Firm supporter of intervention who is described as 'hand in glove with Cameron' on Syria. The Chancellor does however have a firm grip on the purse strings.

Philip Hammond, Defence Secretary
Wants safeguards to prevent weapons going to al Qaeda sympathisers but has called for contingency plans to be drawn up in the MoD. Aides say he 'hasn't taken a firm view' and 'sees the pros and cons'. He has warned that there are limits to what the Armed Forces can do. Mr Hammond was recently present when backbenchers suggested that the Tory leadership could do with ‘a small war’ to distract attention from party discontent over Europe and gay marriage. ‘It had better be a very small war,’ the Defence Secretary said. But fellow ministers say Mr Hammond is ‘very supportive’ of the Prime Minister’s stance that arms may be necessary and place him firmly in the hawk camp.

THE DOVES
Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister
Told the meeting ‘there is no military solution’ to the war and that Britain should not act unless ‘there is a wider political strategy that’s supported by other leading powers, particularly the US’. Clegg is also keen to help the refugees, which leads to a emphasis on humanitarian aid rather than supplying weapons.

Chris Grayling, Justice Secretary
Takes a ‘facts based’ approach and is ‘forensic’ in his analysis according to his fellow ministers. Renowned as one of the tougher right wingers in the Cabinet but on this he has surprised his colleagues by taking a sceptical view.

Justine Greening, International Development Secretary
Expressed scepticism that intervention will do any good and has a departmental interest in stressing the need to provide humanitarian aid to refugees fleeing the war zone rather than military intervention. Aides say she is 'open' to persuasion but do not deny that she voiced doubts in the NSC.

Dominic Grieve, Attorney General
Does not express a personal view in meetings but stresses what is legally sound. Grieve was a key player in pressing Hague and Cameron to seek changes to the EU arms embargo on Syria. Has warned Mr Cameron that he would be on ‘safer ground’ if he secures backing from the United Nations – something that looks impossible since Russia, which has a UN veto, is propping up the regime in Damascus. One source characterised the Attorney General’s interventions as ‘being a bit like someone’s wife, saying: “Why don’t you think about this all the time?”’.
The source said the Prime Minister ‘gets very irritated with Dominic’.

Sayeeda Warsi, Faith Minister
The independent minded minister, who failed to back the government over gay marriage earlier this week, is concerned that the war could lead to a backlash among Muslim communities in Britain and fuel extremism in the UK.

Ken Clarke, Minister without portfolio
The veteran cabinet minister was kept on by David Cameron because he likes to hear the advice of someone who can remember cock ups carried out over a period of four decades. On Syria, observers say Ken's Eeyore tendencies have come to the fore and he warns the PM of the potential downsides of intervention.

Share this article:

31 May 2013 11:01 AM

As I revealed in the paper, William Hague is making a speech today in Gerrmany that will begin the process of renegotiation with the European Union.

What makes it interesting is that the Foreign Secretary will not be listing specific powers that the UK wants to repatriate, but instead will offer a new vision of how the EU might work in future, a vision that finds a stronger role for national parliaments and attempts to plug the democratic deficit which has grown ever wider in the EU in recent years.

The different factions of Tory Eurosceptics, said to number eight, have spent a great deal of time drawing up lists of powers they want to reclaim from Brussels.

But when some of them have sought to make their views known to David Cameron, he has firmly stated his opposition to MPs presenting him with 'shopping lists'.

Mr Hague will demand a
new ‘red card’ system so national Parliaments can block unwelcome EU laws. That will give greater powers to the House of Commons and other national assemblies and allow them to overrule legislation proposed by the European Commission if enough of those
parliaments call for it to be thrown out.

The Foreign Secretary's case is that the European Parliament has
‘failed’ to introduce democratic accountability to the EU.

Little known and little used powers currently exist which allows Parliaments in
member states to issue a ‘yellow card’ to the European Commission, which
proposes all EU legislation.

But that device only forces the unelected Commission to think again about laws,
it cannot block them altogether.

There are three significant points here:

1) Mr Hague doesn't think there is much point grabbing powers back that the Commission has already accumulated if there is no brake on them devising undesirable new laws in future. While Tory MPs busy themselves with their shopping lists, the Foreign Office is more interested in structures that make the EU more palatable to Britain.

2) It follows from this that Mr Hague wants to find a way of making the EU somewhere that British people want to be part of, where national MPs have more say in proceedings. He does not want to use the renegotiation as an excuse to get out of the EU. Not all of his colleagues, shall we say, are fully in agreement with this approach.

3) This approach has more chance of bearing fruit than a simple demand for repatriation of powers. The Foreign Office thinks the red card system will win support from other North European countries who also get annoyed at the creeping power grabs of the Commission. Just as Germany, Austria and the Dutch back Britain over Commission's prosecution of the UK over benefits rules, so too do some countries sympathise with greater say for national parliaments. It is possible that France would be more open to this approach too. French diplomatic sources told me recently that while they oppose attempts to tear up the rules that have already been written, they are more open to Britain opting out of future rule changes.

None of which means that Tory MPs will be satisfied with structural changes. They don't just want to prevent further EU power grabs, they want to unpick many of the old ones on working rights and home affairs coordination. Many want little more than a trading bloc.

But this is the first taste of how the Tory high command it is instructive.

Here's how a senior source explained his thinking to me:

‘He is going to make the case that the European
Parliament is not the answer to the democratic deficit in the EU. In every
treaty over the last 30 years the European Parliament has been given more
powers and in every European election turnout has dropped.
‘The answer lies in national governments and national parliaments. We need to
give them more powers to do things better.
‘The yellow card system allows parliaments to protest if they think a proposal
by the Commission is something that should be dealt with by national
governments instead. But the system doesn’t work well and we could do much
more.
‘We need a better mechanism to get national parliaments working together. The
EU system at the moment is great at centralising power and hopeless at
decentralising. The Commission is great at sucking up powers and hopeless at
giving them back.
‘Unless we get reforms like this we can’t have an EU that is acceptable to the
British people. If you have a system you don't like it tends to produce outcomes
that you will dislike. We need to change the system.’

Mats Persson of the Open Europe think tank added: ‘Allowing national parliaments
to block unwanted EU laws would go a long way to bring back democratic
accountability over EU decisions.

'However, whilst it’s encouraging that the UK
government is looking at this, it must press ahead with this reform now to avoid
the impression that it has no immediate strategy in Europe – a charge that’s
becoming more frequent. There’s support for this reform in other parts of the
EU.’

30 April 2013 8:30 PM

The coalition’s spending review is getting ugly – descending
into what one special adviser has compared to the Hunger Games, a bitter fight
to the death for ever dwindling resources.

At least five departments are now seeking to raid the budgets
of their rivals.

We know that Defence Secretary Philip Hammond is keen to get
his hands on NHS money and force the Department for Education to pay for the
private schooling of service personnel.

Others at the top of government are keen to see the Department
of Health funnel cash to Eric Pickles to help local councils pay for care – in
the hope that that alleviates the high cost of overstretched hospital A&E
units.

The Ministry of Justice, the Business Department and the Home
Office all want to breach the NHS ring fence too.

Both the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office hope to
seize funds from the department for International Development – plans Mr
Cameron has previously endorsed.

‘It’s every man for himself now,’ said one ministerial aide.
‘It’s a battle to the death, like something from the Hunger Games.’

But the backlash is beginning.

I’m told David Cameron indirectly admonished Defence Secretary
Philip Hammond for leaking details of his desires at a Tory political cabinet
this morning. He called on ministers to ‘keep their thoughts to themselves’.

My snout says said: ‘He didn’t mention Phil by name but it
was perfectly obvious to everyone who he had in mind.’

Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt is also refusing to accept any
cuts to his budget and turning on the moral blackmail for Mr Cameron.

He will remind the Prime Minister that ringfencing the NHS
budget was his personal pledge to voters and argue that great harm will come to
the Tory brand if he backtracks.

‘We will be arguing for the retention of the ringfence,’ a
DoH source said. ‘This was a pledge the Prime Minister made in opposition. It was
a big call to make and it has proved to be right.

‘Demand is rising by 4 per cent a year in the NHS and having
the budget means we can just about meet the requirements and plan ahead. There
is a very strong case for maintaining the ringfence. It would undo much of the
good work of the original pledge.’

The DoH, the one department that can literally offer up ‘bleeding
stumps’ – the Whitehall term for unpalatable cuts designed to win an argument
with the Treasury – will be doing no such thing when their spending review
submission goes in at midnight. Their plans are based on a real terms rise in
spending in 2015/16 as previously planned.

Mr Hunt seems to have an ally in Nick Clegg, who said today
that the coalition is ‘sticking with the protected departments’.

The Department of Education is also resisting the raid on
its funds by Mr Hammond. Education Secretary Michael Gove will argue that deep
cuts to his budget will threaten the government’s pledge to provide free
childcare to 40 per cent of 2 year olds – a key pledge of Mr Clegg - and also mean
cuts to school sport, an issue likely to attract maximum public attention and
whingeing Olympians.

One insider even said, facetiously, that if the Ministry of
Defence wants money to send service children to private schools, Mr Gove should
have some say over where they are stationed. ‘They don’t have to be posted to
Germany,’ the source said. ‘Perhaps Michael should be consulted about their
deployments.’

For their part, Foreign Office insiders say that unless they
get their hands on further cuts will damage the British Council and lead to the
closure of historic embassy buildings around the world.

These are only the opening moves in the poker game, but it’s
already getting spicy.

Share this article:

25 March 2013 1:19 PM

I seem to have been watching a different Boris Johnson
interview from everybody else.

Yes, the BBC’s Eddie Mair asked some pretty tough questions
of Boris Johnson on the Andrew Marr show yesterday and in one regard
overstepped the mark. I cannot imagine a BBC interviewer asking a Labour
politician whether he is ‘a nasty piece of work’.

But character counts in politics, particularly in this ever
more presidential age. Boris has not often been put on the spot about issues
surrounding his past behaviour in a television interview. If he wants to be
Prime Minister – and the Mayor did nothing in his twisting and turning to
disabuse us of that notion – voters have a right to know who he is.

There are legitimate questions about his serial womanising
and whether he tells the truth. Not because I believe that sexual infidelity disqualifies
someone from office but because voters have a right to know the sort of person
they are selecting to lead them. In this regard there are many more lurid
questions that Eddie Mair might have asked. If he hopes to lead the country,
Boris is at some time likely to be asked them. That’s the baggage he comes with
and he’ll need some answers, even if it’s simply that such issues are between
him and his wife.

The Darius Guppy episode is a curious one, but easily
dismissed since Boris did not supply Guppy with the journalist’s address and no
one got hurt. So too the affair of the made up quote when the tyro hack worked
for the Times.

Fans of Boris should recognise that it does their man no
favours to seek to protect him from this line of questioning. If this is really
the worst that an interviewer can throw at him, it hardly seems terminal since
he has twice been elected in Labour-leaning London.

Nor is it a stone cold case of political bias. Don’t forget
that the BBC once asked Charles Kennedy why he had bothered to get married and
Gordon Brown whether he was taking anti-depressants.

But if I don’t share the view of many on the right that
Eddie Mair is a disgrace, I also don’t share the view of the rest that this was
a disaster for Boris.

When I watched Marr a day late this morning, I imagined that
I would see him torn limb from political limb. It was not so. Yes, Boris
blustered and dodged, but then Boris blusters and dodges for a living. That’s
his thing.

In fact, in the face of what many believe to be tough or
outrageous questioning, he kept a cool head. He didn’t avoid the questions or
refuse to answer them. He remained genial, certainly more so than Nick Clegg does when asked questions he dislikes. He said there were details that were
inaccurate. This morning Boris has said Eddie Mair did a ‘splendid job’ of
grilling him. Shrewd move. No politician likes to face personal questions. But
no politician who cannot handle them is fit to govern. Boris handled them fine.

Boris left his father Stanley to play bad cop. He has
proclaimed Mair’s interview ‘the most disgusting piece of journalism I've
listened to for a very long time’. Others have proclaimed this the death of
Boris’s leadership hopes.

Share this article:

CHAPMAN & CO

The Chapman & Co blog takes you behind the scenes of the Westminster village with Fleet Street's finest political reporting team. Check here for the latest news, analysis, gossip and scandal from the Daily Mail's Political Editor James Chapman, Deputy Political Editor Tim Shipman, Political Correspondents Jason Groves, Kirsty Walker and Gerri Peev and Whitehall Correspondent Daniel Martin.